1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to surfboards, specifically an improved foot binding devise for a surfboard.
2. Description of Prior Art
With the convergence of advancing surfboard design and improving technical skills, surfers are attempting increasingly difficult maneuvers. In order for a surfer to complete modern technical maneuvers, his or her feet must remain attached to the deck of the surfboard. Related sports such as windsurfing, skiing, snowboarding, wakeboarding, and waterskiing have adopted binding devises or foot support apparatuses that successfully attach the user to his or her equipment. This binding action empowers athletes to perform maneuvers otherwise extremely difficult. As prior art notes, a practical, effective binding devise would be advantageous for the progression of surfing. The desire to provide an acceptable form of attachment has been strong. Numerous inventors have proposed and have received patents on an array of innovative devices. None, however, have proven acceptable in practice. The devices heretofore known suffer from a number of disadvantages:
a) Use of Hands. Some devices proposed, such as a strap (U.S. Pat. No. 4929208 to Corica, 1990) or handgrip (U.S. Pat. No. 4990113 to Morrison, 1991), require the use of a surfer's hand or hands while performing a maneuver. In the case of the strap, the surfer pulls his or her board against his or her feet using a strap attached to the deck of the board to perform maneuvers. For the handgrip, a grip is mounted onto the deck of a board and the surfer must bend over to grab the grip to hold onto the surfboard to perform maneuvers. Because surfers use their legs to maneuver their boards and their arms primarily for momentum and balance, apparatuses that incorporate the use of a surfer's hand or hands during maneuvers present great difficulties.
b) Lack of Attachment. Accordingly, devises that increase frictional traction for a surfer's feet (for example, U.S. Pat. No. 5308271 to Foulke, 1994) and increase support for the surfer's feet (for example, U.S. Pat. No. 5460558 to Woodstock, 1995) are more functional and are actually frequently used in practice. Although non-slip pads and foot saddles reduce slipping and add a degree of control, they are limited in that they do not provide attachment.
c) Impeded Engagement. Numerous foot loop or foot strap devises similar to those attached to sailboards have been proposed for surfboards (for example, U.S. Pat. No. 5167553 to Wilson, 1992). Because there is a supporting element over the top of a surfer's foot or feet, these devises provide the desired attachment. However, because such devices have an impeding strap or loop element where the surfer would normally place his or her foot when standing, the devises create an obstacle for the surfer to stand. Once standing, the surfer must temporarily lift his or her foot off the board and slip it underneath the loop or strap. Some devices even require the surfer to use his/her hand or hands to strap in for attachment. As surfing requires a tremendous amount of balance, this unnatural foot engagement motion proves quite difficult and may cause the surfer to fall. This motion is also time consuming which is especially detrimental because waves often crash quickly or offer short rides; time spent haggling with engagement is time away from enjoying the ride. These complications are compounded when the surfer attempts to engage both feet in a pair of binding apparatuses. In sum, proposed foot loop or strap devises create an obstacle for standing, require awkward movements for engagement, and are time-consuming to operate--perhaps all factors that help explain why such devises are not widely implemented.
d) Discomfort in Paddling. Another great design obstacle for creating a functional foot binding devise is the issue of comfort while paddling, an obstacle not present with many other related sports. When paddling, the surfer lays in the prone position atop his board. The surfer's chest lays flat on the surfboard, where his or her front foot will be positioned when he or she stands. This factor alone renders much prior art unacceptable on account of the discomfort of paddling caused by a protruding devise. U.S. Pat. No. 5484312 to Zepeda, 1996 shows a support apparatus which is collapsible, yet as the surfer lays to paddle on his or her board, the collapsed foot piece creates a protrusion on the deck of the board. Even a slight protrusion can cause great discomfort.
e) Elevated Surface and Added Weight. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5544919 to Tinkler, 1996 and 5591060 to Forsyth, 1993 show similar collapsible apparatuses. Both have an upper portion that folds down on top of a lower portion. The drawback of having an upper and lower portion is that it requires an undesirable elevation off the deck of the surfboard. Again, this causes discomfort while paddling. To accomodate this protruding apparatus, Tinkler proposes surrounding padding elevated to an equal height. However, padding just over the apparatus causes an uncomfortable arch in the surfer's back when paddling. Padding covering the deck of the board adds weight, size and cost--distinct disadvantages. Further, there is an inverse relation between elevation off the deck of the surfboard and control. The higher off the deck of the surboard the surfer is during paddling and surfing, the less control he or she has over the board.
f) Impeded Adjustments. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5544919 to Tinkler, 1996 and 5591060 to Forsyth, 1993 also include a strap element in the foot engageable portion between the upper and lower portions. As the user enters his or her foot into the support, he/she presses his/her foot against the strap. The strap cinches closed the upper portion of the support on top of the user's foot. The problem with this mechanical cinching action is that if the user inserts an unintended portion of his or her foot into the apparatus, the devise may cinch closed, and readjustment into the proper location is difficult as the support is cinched down on the user's foot. Further, the strap in the foot engageable portion may hinder full engagement of the surfer's foot into the support or cause the surfer to get entangled. Also, the minor side-to-side rocking, lateral, and forward and backward foot adjustments required for maneuvering the surfboard are restricted when the devise is clinched closed.
g) Lack of Removability. Prior art discloses a variety of devises that protrude off the deck of a surfboard. Surfboards are often stacked for transport. A protruding devise increases space requirements for transport which increases costs (in the case of shipping and travel) and decreases convenience. Similarly, protruding devices increase space requirements for storage. No known binding devise which allows quick, easy engagement and comfortable paddling may be completely and easily removed from the deck of a surfboard for improved transport and storage.
h) Lack of Option to Employ. A major drawback for proposed apparatuses is the lack of an easy option for a surfer to decide whether or not to employ the support apparatuses from session to session or on a wave-by-wave basis during the same surfing session. As the size and form of waves continually change, there are conditions and waves where a foot support apparatus may not prove beneficial. No known devices enable surfers to preferentially decide whether or not to employ the support apparatuses based on the conditions or their whim.
i) Lack of Adjustability. Surfers either stand on their boards with their left foot forward (regular foot) or with their right foot forward (goofy foot). Some surfers have wide stances; some have narrow stances. Some place their feet perpendicular with the board; some more at an angle. Some surfers borrow boards; some rent boards. The size of the surf, which is in constant flux, also dictates where a surfer will stand. Apparatuses or devises that are securely attached to the surfboard fail to address the need for surfers to easily adjust their apparatuses or devises, often in the ocean, without tools. No known acceptable binding devise allows surfers complete adjustability after initial attachment.
j) Difficult Disengagement. Footwear has also been proposed to provide surfers attachment to their boards. Suction cups attached to a band under a surfer's foot to grip the board have been proposed (U.S. Pat. No. 4775345 to Gifford, 1988). So too have hook-and-loop footwear where the hook-bearing material on the surfer's footwear and the loop-bearing material on the surfboard deck unite to attach the surfer to his or her board (U.S. Pat. No. 4645466 to Ellis, 1985). These devises have some major drawbacks: They grip at a first connection point which is rarely the desired location of a surfer's feet. Furthermore, if they create a sufficiently strong attachment for technical maneuvers, they do not allow a surfer to easily adjust her/his feet once attached. Additionally, if they provide a sufficiently strong attachment, they do not allow for easy detachment from the surfboard which can prove quite hazardous.